Large bottle sizes: a campaign

[DRT]

Now, if the port shippers were willing and able to sell some of those big older bottles that I've seen in a number of lodges.... that would be a completely different story.

I believe this is what Jdaw is wanting to do. Many of these bottles exist for previous vintages and Jdaw wants to buy some but the shippers are not allowed to sell them.

Derek

[SEAN C.]

I seem to recall seeing dozens of a size larger than a double magnum (imperial or jeroboam) recently in Portugal..I believe I have pictures. The vintage was 1994 I think. It's a shame they are not made available to consumers ..I asked at almost every Port house I went to and was told they are only bottled for "charity auctions" or special events!
I would (and do) buy double magnums every time I see them..which is not often ..I know of only two! double magnums available for sale in the US...both are 1977 Taylor.

[jdaw1]

A letter was sent to the Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e Porto, cc Ministro da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas and the Ministro da Economia e da Inovação. The letter was bilingual, English on the left and Portuguese on the right, which can’t quite be replicated in phpBB2.

The IVDP currently forbids the port houses from selling port in bottles larger than a magnum. Please, why? Other wine regions don’t impose similar constraints on their wine producers.

• O IVDP actualmente proíbe a venda de casas de porto, mas em garrafas maiores do que um magnum. Porquê? Outras regiões vinícolas não impor restrições semelhantes sobre os seus produtores vitivinícolas.

On 28th February 2007, in New York, Sotheby’s sold one Nebuchadnezzar of 2000 Mouton Rothschild for US $100,000. That is $5000 per bottle. Mouton Rothschild make good wine, but so do the best port houses. Surely the best port names would like to have sold their product at a hammer price of €3850 per bottle.

• Em 28 de Fevereiro de 2007, em Nova Iorque, Sotheby’s vendeu um Nabucodonozor Mouton Rothschild de 2000 para US $100.000. Que é de US$ 5000 por garrafa. Mouton Rothschild faz um bom vinho, mas não faz o melhor porto casas. Sem dúvida os melhores nomes de porto, gostaria de ter vendido o seu produto a um preço de €3850 por garrafa.

Allowing larger bottles could even be seen as part of a larger national objective, the Lisbon Agenda 2000. In most countries a Minister of the Economy and Innovation would welcome a loosening of the rules that helps exports while hurting nobody. Hence this letter is copied to Manuel Pinho, in the hope that somebody in his office will ask the IVDP whether there is a good reason for this rule. As the IVDP is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, it has also been copied to Minister of Agriculture.

• Permitindo maiores garrafas poderia até ser visto como parte de um grande objetivo nacional, a Agenda de Lisboa de 2000. Na maior parte dos países um Ministro da Economia e da Inovação gostaria de receber um afrouxamento das regras que ajuda as exportações enquanto ferir ninguém. Daí esta carta é copiado para Manuel Pinho, na esperança de que alguém no seu gabinete o IVDP irá perguntar se existe uma boa razão para esta regra. Como o IVDP faz parte do Ministério da Agricultura, que também foi copiado para o ministro da Agricultura.

But the IVDP might argue that, for example, having both 1.5 litre and 1.6 litre bottles would confuse customers, and hence that some regulation of bottle sizes is appropriate. In which case please expand the list of allowed bottles sizes to include the following:

• Mas o IVDP poderia argumentar que, por exemplo, tendo ambos os 1,5 litro e 1,6 litro garrafas iria confundir clientes e, portanto, que alguns regulamentos do tamanhos da garrafa são adequados. Caso em que queira expandir a lista das garrafas do tamanho permitido para incluir o seguinte:

• 2¼ litres (tregnum);
• 3 litres (double-magnum);
• 4½ litres (half a case);
• 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 litres;
• Any size larger than 18 litres, however big;
• Any bottle ≥ 2¼ litres that was bottled before this change in the rules (so the port producers may profit from the old large bottles in their cellars, some of which I want to buy).

• • 2¼ litros (tregnum);
  • 3 litros (dublo-magnum);
  • 4½ litros (metade de um caso);
  • 6, 9, 12, 15 ou 18 litros;
  • Qualquer tamanho maior que 18 litros (no entanto grande);
  • Qualquer garrafa ≥ 2¼ litros que foi engarrafado antes desta mudança nas regras (por isso os produtores do porto podem beneficiar das antigas grandes garrafas nas suas caves, algumas das quais gostaria de comprar).

Of course, these allowed sizes would not be compulsory. If any particular house wants to bottle only the ¾-litre or 1½-litre sizes, then that would be perfectly fine. But if a house wants to sell a larger size, and a customer wants to buy, that would also be perfectly fine.

• Naturalmente, esses tamanhos permitidos, não seriam obrigatórias. Se uma determinada casa quer uma garrafa só a ¾ de litro ou 1½ litro de tamanhos e, em seguida, que seria perfeitamente bem. Mas se quer uma casa para vender um pouco maiores, e um cliente deseja comprar, o que também seria perfeitamente bem.

And yes, there are bottles sitting in cellars in Vila Nova de Gaia that I want to buy. I want to pay money; producers want to take my money; and for no good reason at all the IVDP says that this is not allowed. Please, either tell me why (and tell it to the Ministro da Economia e da Inovação), or let me buy what Portugal wants to sell.

• E sim, existem garrafas sessão em caves, em Vila Nova de Gaia que eu quero comprar. Eu quero pagar dinheiro; produtores querem levar o meu dinheiro, e não por um bom motivo, e todo o IVDP diz que isso não é permitido. Por favor, diga-me por qual razão quer (e diga-la ao Ministro da Economia e da Inovação), ou deixe-me comprar o que Portugal pretende vender.

[jdaw1]

An excellent letter has been received from the IVDP. To assist the readers I have added links and space between paragraphs, but these were not in the original.

Dear Sir,

We have received your letter relating to the regulation of Port wine bottle sizes, and thank you very much for your concern.

Relating to the European Union Wine Market, we would like to take your attention to the fact that the bottle sizes, between 5 ml and 10 l, must comply with the Council Directive of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (75/106/EEC), last amended by the Council Directive 89/676/EEC of 21 December 1989. According to this Directive, and for the liqueur wines, the largest bottle allowed is 5 litres. This directive also establishes the several sizes allowed below 5 litres.

The Portuguese law is in accordance with this Directive, namely the Decree-Law n.° 310/91, of 17 August, and the Ministerial Order n.° 359/94, of 7 of June (modified by the Decree-Law 367/97, of 24 of December).

Of course, there may be exceptions if the wine is going to be exported to a third country. In this case the bottle size must comply with the rules of the importer country, for example in the case of the US, the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Chapter I, Part 4, Subpart H, §4.70 to §4.73 (in http://www.atf.treas.gov/).

However, article 8 of the IVDP Regulation n.° 23/2006 (published in the Portuguese Official Journal, II, 12 of April of 2006) relating to the Designation, Presentation and Protection of the Appellation of Origin Port, approved by the IVDP Interprofissional [sic] Council, determines that the largest bottle allowed is 150 centiliters, except for Aged Tawnies, Crusted, Late Bottled Vintage, Single Year Vintage and Classic Vintage Ports for which the largest allowed is 300 centiliters. It also determines that in certain cases, duly justified, namely for promotional purposes, IVDP may allow the use of larger bottles.

We must underline that these rules were approved by a Council that is composed by representatives of the Port wine Growers and Port houses.

However, we must underline that the use of very large bottles may be dangerous for the protection of this prestigious appellation of origin, as it may allow the practice of frauds.

We will welcome, in any case, proposals from the Port wine Houses concerning the size of the Port wine bottles - I'm sure that they are anxious to earn some more money! That's why, if you agree, we will send a copy of your letter to the Port Wine Shippers Association.

We hope, we have clearly answered your questions, and will be pleased to clarify any doubts that may arise.

Yours sincerely,

Jorge Monteiro
President

[jdaw1]

It is clear from the rules to which Jorge Monteiro refers that the IVDP’s rule-making powers are constrained by European rules (add to his list amendment 88/316/EEC of 7 June 1988). But the IVDP’s rules are more restrictive than they should be—a sourced opinion is being crafted, and will appear here.

Further, there are obvious loopholes in 75/106/EEC, and the IVDP should explicitly permit exploitation of these loopholes. (No details yet: I am carefully checking whether the loopholes exist; and I am willing to accept that they might not be obvious—it took me a few moments to think of the second one.)

[g-man]

determines that the largest bottle allowed is 150 centiliters, except for Aged Tawnies, Crusted, Late Bottled Vintage, Single Year Vintage and Classic Vintage Ports for which the largest allowed is 300 centiliters.[/quote]

says that classic vintage ports allowed is double mags

[jdaw1]

As I am using this thread to hold my own notes and useful links: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff. Page 165, in particular.

[jdaw1]

Help please! I need somebody to read something(s) for me. I don’t even need the loopholes: the IVDP is, I think, misinterpreting the relevant definitions.

You will need:

• From the IVDP’s letter:

  Relating to the European Union Wine Market, we would like to take your attention to the fact that the bottle sizes, between 5 ml and 10 l, must comply with the Council Directive of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (75/106/EEC), last amended by the Council Directive 89/676/EEC of 21 December 1989. According to this Directive, and for the liqueur wines, the largest bottle allowed is 5 litres. This directive also establishes the several sizes allowed below 5 litres.

  So the IVDP is assuming that, for EU purposes, port is a “liqueur wine†.
• From the EEC regulation on bottle sizes:

  1. (d) Vermouths and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts (CCT heading No 22.06); liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05 C)

  So liqueur wines defined in 22.05 except C.
• From the EU definition of “CCT subheading ex 22.05 C†:

  5. (a) grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol, that is to say, a product:
  — having an actual alcoholic strength by volume of not less than 12 % vol but less than 15 % vol, …
  [5. ](b) wine fortified for distillation, that is to say, a product:
  …
  — obtained exclusively by the addition to wine containing no residual sugar of an unrectified product derived from the distillation of wine …
  [5. ](c) [not relevant as excepted]

  (Bolding added by jdaw1.) Last time I looked, port had alcohol tidily in excess of 15%, and had plenty of residual sugar. So “CCT subheading ex 22.05 C† is not port. (And it doesn’t even fall under 22.05 C (without the “ex†) as that explicitly refers to “obtained from grape must or wine, which must come from vine varieties approved in the third country of origin for the production of liqueur wine and have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol†, and port isn’t from a third country, and the wine to which alcohol is added is about 7% which is < 12%).

Hence in 75/106/EEC (as amended) port does not fall under 1.(d); it falls under 1.(a), which is entirely different. For which (second column), the allowed bottle sizes are, in litres, in the order listed, 0.10, 0.25, 0.375, 0.50, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 0.187, 4, 8. All of which should therefore be allowed by the IVDP.

Please could a non-jdaw1 pedant work through this post, checking my reading and either explicitly agreeing, or explaining why there is disagreement.

(Finding the regulations, and reading them carefully, was quite a lot of work. Please, you are asked to do only the reading.)

[uncle tom]

I drafted quite a long response to this research, after looking at the referenced texts, using a computer that had previously been TPF friendly, only be to logged out (losing my text..) when I hit the 'submit' button

This instability of my log-in to TPF is a bit of an issue...

In brief:

Having seen previous EC garbage, I'm pretty sure this was a French attempt to screw the Spaniards and Portuguese, who in turn got the footnote inserted at the bottom of the Liqueur definition - look again!

I think the abbreviation 'ex' probably does not mean 'excluding'

The bit about third countries may be a clumsy translation - it makes no rational sense.

IVDP are probably correct

5 litres is plenty!

Tom

[jdaw1]

I drafted quite a long response to this research, after looking at the referenced texts, using a computer that had previously been TPF friendly, only be to logged out (losing my text..) when I hit the 'submit' button

Very long posts I draft as a PM to myself, going through cycles of ‘Submit’ and ‘Quote’.

Having seen previous EC garbage, I'm pretty sure this was a French attempt to screw the Spaniards and Portuguese,

You surely aren’t wrong. At least, for once, it wasn’t us on the receiving end.

who in turn got the footnote inserted at the bottom of the Liqueur definition - look again!

Footnote where? Document? Page? Paragraph, please?

I think the abbreviation 'ex' probably does not mean 'excluding'

Port fails C, so it doesn’t matter whether or not it does mean “excluding†.

The bit about third countries may be a clumsy translation - it makes no rational sense.

And that distinguishes it from 75/106/EEC as amended exactly how? CCT is based on WTO definitions, so won’t be a multi-lingual as EU documents. Any which way, English is as binding as any other.

IVDP are probably correct

Oddly, this is of not more than the slightest relevance. If the IVDP can claim that there is a reading that suits them, Brussels will not want to chase it. Eureaucrats now understand (Lisbon Agenda 2000) that bureaucratic rules hurt the economy. A reading, even if only one of several possible readings, is enough.

5 litres is plenty!

Mostly. But there are 6L bottlings laid down in cellars, and the houses should be allowed to sell them.

[Conky]

So you could 'legally' have 5 litre bottles of Port exported?

Julian,

as that would be surely big enough, why dont you concentrate on encouraging the Port Industry to introduce that size?
Now that would be a fun Tasting. We all turn up and drink a 5 litre bottle of Fonseca 85. Maybe somewhere central, like the Isle of White.

Alan

[jdaw1]

Because that Fonseca bottled was 6L imperials, not 5L jeroboams.

[Conky]

Yes, I know. But they cant sell them via export and make a profit.

If they were rebottled, from singles or 6litre versions, a procedure relatively easy for a Producer...


Am I being dense, because this all seems relatively easy

[jdaw1]

they cant sell them via export

They currently can’t sell them, because the IVDP has drafted laws based on a needlessly tight reading of EU Directives. But the houses should be allowed to.

[Conky]

Fair enough. So you specifically want that imperial size.

I was much more behind your request, when I thought you were after 'Occasion sized' bottles. With the EU involved, and everything being metric, I think you may struggle to get them to allow 'antiquated and imperial' measures, but good luck.

[uncle tom]

Julian,

Have you considered getting wine supplied in double mags and then re-bottling? - it might be a whole lot easier..!

Also, are you sure those big bottles in the Croft lodge are six litres and not five?

I wonder where you would source 6L port bottles - I'm not sure who else would have a use for a brown glass wine bottle of that size (in an appropriate shape)

I doubt the bottle makers would be very interested in small runs, and might want a huge tooling fee...! Hand blown bottles are used for the biggest bottles of Champagne, but they cost a fortune to have made.

But I agree with your argument about the restriction being unwarranted - I can't see any justification for a statutory limit on the maximum size of a bottle of wine.

For now, having determined that the producers CAN supply double mags - how about talking to some of them about the possibility of a special bottling next year?

Tom

[Alex Bridgeman]

I'll try and have a read through the referenced materials over the weekend, provided I can make the time.

Alex

[DRT]

I don't understand why there are any restrictions whatsoever on bottle sizes.

What dredfull thing would happen to the world if someone sold a 0.9 litre bottle of port? I just don't get it.

...and the thing about large bottle sizes increasing the opportunity for fakes is simply absurd. If you want to make fakes the best thing to do is produce something that is already a mass market product that no one would notice a few extra bottles of. I'm quite sure that a dozen 12 litre bottles of Fonseca 66 turning up at Christies would draw too much attention for the average faker to be comfortable that they would pull off the scam.

It seems to me that we have a hard task on our hands. Firstly we have unfathomable EU legislation that the EU bofins are unlikely to want to discuss, let alone change. We then have a highly beurocratic organisation giving those unfathomable rules and equally unfathomable interpretation which just happens to suit their own agenda. The chances of changing either the interpretation or the underlying rules is just less than nil.

I think the best way to get around this is to persuade the shippers to ignore it and sell what they have direct from their cellars in VNG straight into the back of a van.

Question: If you put a label on a 6l bottle with a mark saying that it contained 5l of port would anyone at customs and excise know the difference?

Derek

[jdaw1]

Question: If you put a label on a 6l bottle with a mark saying that it contained 5l of port would anyone at customs and excise know the difference?

Further, there are obvious loopholes in 75/106/EEC, and the IVDP should explicitly permit exploitation of these loopholes.

Well found Derek. I am not alone. 75/106/EEC (as amended) doesn’t really regulate bottle sizes. It regulates labels. The label must be:

• no greater than the actual volume (well, it’s more complicated than that, but take that as a sufficient condition); and
• one of a set of prescribed sizes.

So one could indeed label a 15L bottle “5L†, and lo and behold, it becomes legal. One could even add to the reverse label words to the effect of “this bottle, before being filled with port, was tested and able to hold 15L of water. EU regulations do not allow us to claim that it contains more than 5L of port. But we hope you understand: the bottle can hold 15L of liquid.† Customs would probably still sting for 15L of excise duty—but that only proves that the rules were written by the French.

[jdaw1]

What dredfull thing would happen to the world if someone sold a 0.9 litre bottle of port? I just don't get it.

The dreadful (note spelling) thing happening would be customer confusion. If port were sold in 75cl, 72cl, 70cl, 68cl, 65cl, and other in-between sizes, the bureaucrats (note spelling) think that price comparisons would be trickier, and hence the market less efficient. They aren’t wholly wrong. But they can safely assume that purchasers of really large bottle are at least one of:

• competent professionals;
• irredeemably stupid.

And either way, it makes no difference.

[DRT]

dreadful (note spelling) ...bureaucrats (note spelling)

I think the "a" key on my keyboard has an intermitent fault

Derek

I suspect that the penultimate word of that sentence is ripe for correction

[DRT]

The dreadful (note spelling) thing happening would be customer confusion. If port were sold in 75cl, 72cl, 70cl, 68cl, 65cl, and other in-between sizes, the bureaucrats (note spelling) think that price comparisons would be trickier, and hence the market less efficient. They aren’t wholly wrong.

This argument only really holds true in relation to what is stated on the label. The reality is that fill levels vary from one run to another and I am quite sure that if you picked a few random bottles of VP from any given vintage you would find a 2 to 3cl variation either way in the actual volume of liquid contained in the bottle. I don't think that average consumer thinks too deeply, or cares, about the difference between a 70cl or 75cl bottle. It is simply referred to as 'a bottle of XYZ'

Derek

[Conky]

I don't think that average consumer thinks too deeply, or cares, about the difference between a 70cl or 75cl bottle. It is simply referred to as 'a bottle of XYZ'
Derek

I think your right on that point. I'm also confused as to why that same average consumer thinks too deeply, or cares, about the difference between 5 and 6 litre bottles. If there's no pressing market, No ones going to change on the whim of the odd fanatic. The Logic holds true for both cases.

Alan

[DRT]

Alan,

I do think there is a difference.

If a nutter wants to buy a 6l bottle of port then why should the authorities care one way or another whether or not a producer is willing to sell him one?

Consumers don't have to explain to the world why they want something - producers and regulators should be expected to have sound reasoning behind why the consumer can or cannot have what they want, especially when it is as innocent as a particular volume of a product that is generally available.

...and the fact that most other people in the world can't understand why someone would want a 6l bottle is not a reason to absolve the regulators of that responsability.

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

What dredfull thing would happen to the world if someone sold a 0.9 litre bottle of port? I just don't get it.

The dreadful (note spelling) thing happening would be customer confusion. If port were sold in 75cl, 72cl, 70cl, 68cl, 65cl, and other in-between sizes, the bureaucrats think that price comparisons would be trickier, and hence the market less efficient. They aren’t wholly wrong.

Perhaps once this might have been true but with today's supermarkets putting the "price per 100cl" on their shelf labels this comparison is made much easier. I often rely on this simple calculation when buying products that come in different sizes, such as Olive Oil.